24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者howardloveme将赠送您 5 个金币

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

howardloveme

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 15
帖子: 4
在线: 10.2小时
虫号: 3639196
注册: 2015-01-11
专业: 原子和分子物理

[求助] 哪位大神帮忙看一下审稿人意见，本人英语水平有限，怕误解了意思

咬牙投了一个四区的SCI（英文版）,现在反悔审稿人修改意见，建议大修。怕自己理解的不对，闹了笑话，哪位大神帮帮忙看一下啊，审稿意见如下：
1.  The paper claims in the abstract that the results are of "reference value for
relevant experimental research," but in that case greater attention needs to be
paid to the anticipated accuracy of the results, and the uncertainties.  For example,
it can be seen in Table I that many more significant figures are quoted than have
actually converged as a function of basis set size.  The convergence uncertainty
should be included in the tables.
这个意见是让我把表格里有效数字少取几位的意思吗？还是要写出误差啊？我这个是纯理论的结果，没有误差可以对比呀？

2.  It is not clear how the QED corrections were calculated, or what the
uncertainty is in this term.  A simple one-electron approximation is used (see
discussion at the end of Sect. II), but the authors do not give any details
beyond a reference to Bethe and Salpeter's book. What was the actual formula
used?  It is likely that not more than one significant figure is significant in
comparison with experimental data due to (i) screening corrections, (ii)
higher-order corrections, and (iii) electron-electron QED corrections (e.g. the
Araki-Sucher Q-term) that are not included.  In this range of nuclear charge,
(Z alpha) is no longer a small parameter.
这个也是让求QED的误差吗？

回复此楼